THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

4 of the Act. However, subject to the assessee satisfying the conditions prescribed income under Section 10-A is exempted from making such payment. Once the assessee is made to pay tax on such exempted income in the other contracting State then Section 90(1)(a)(ii) enables him to claim credit of the tax paid in the contracting country

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance of expenses claimed under section 37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above

M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 35(1)(i) also came to be disallowed. Said order of assessment dated 31.01.2013 is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths N Venkataraman, learned Senior counsel appearing on 5 behalf of Sri K.R.Vasudevan, for petitioner, Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior panel counsel appearing for respondents. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE: 4

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowed (Rs.) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 Of these, the Assessing Officer found that to the extent given in column 3 above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expense claimed before the Assessing Officer. 16. In respect of assessment

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowed(Rs) (I) (II) (III) 2009-10 28,76,23,325 9,95,82,217 2010-11 2,29,05,056 1,46,91,363 15. Of these the assessing officer found that to the extent given in column (III) above, the appellant was unable to substantiate the said expenses claimed before the assessing officer. 16.In respect of assessment

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

1] or 139[4] of the said act. A return filed is bound to be processed by the Income Tax authorities for which purpose they are meant unless there is an embargo placed. 23. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Centum Industries Private Limited case, reported in [2015] 77 VST 117 [Karn], The Division Bench of this Court

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

disallowance was founded on the proviso to Section 92C(4) of the Act. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36360-DB ITA No. 107 of 2025 C/W ITA No. 106 of 2025 17. It is material to note that the TP adjustments are made pursuant to the APA entered into by the Assessee with CBDT. Section 92CC

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

4 expenditure. The Assessing Officer held the above income to be in the nature of capital expenditure and disallowed the claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, assessments were concluded. The Assessing Officer also separately initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

4 exceeds the credit balance of the provisions made under section 36(1)(viia) of the I.T. Act?”. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal’s order can be considered as perverse in nature since tribunal has allowed the assessee’s appeal by over-looking the provisions of I.T. Act?”. 3) “Whether

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.J.J.GLASTRONICS PVT LTD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,J.M.KHAZI

1(f) to Section 115JB(2) in a right perspective. Referring to the said provision it was submitted that the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which Section 10 other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof or Section 11 or Section 12 apply has to be considered for the purpose of Section 115JB

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMALGAMATED BEAN COFFEE TRADING CO LTD

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4

COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LTD. vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the orders dated 21

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 36(1)(iii) which was brought into force with effect from 01.04.2004. (iv) In respect of claim for disallowance of processing and other charges, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

In the result, the impugned orders passed by

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM. ………..APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND : M/S.NIRANI SUGARS LTD., 166, KULALI CROSS, JAMAKHANDI ROAD, MUDHOL, DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587 313, PAN : AABCN2166J. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ASHOK A.KULKARNI AND SHRI.H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1) of the 1961 Act or Section 33(4) of the old 1922 Act. Date of Judgment :23-07-2018 I.T.A.No.512/2017 M/s. Fidelity Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Anr. 25/86 30. Similarly, the learned counsel for the Assessee, Mr. Pardiwala submits that the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court itself

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R.BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-IV(A), MUMBAI ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND M/S WIPRO LTD C/O SHRI.K.R.PRADEEP, C.A NO.120, EDEN PARK, 101, I FLOOR VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT (BY SMY S R ANURADHA , ADV.,) THIS ITA FILED U/S.260-A

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

4 examining the transporters whose statement were recorded by the assessing authority under Section 131 of the Act. Insofar as illegal mining expenses claimed, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of expenditure relating to the illegal mining by holding that explanation to Section 37 is not attracted. Further, details towards personal expenses were sought by the assessing authority with regard